You are on page 1of 4

Respectfully Sheweth;

1. That briefly stated the facts of the case leading to filing of the instant service appeal are that the
appellant was inducted in the Punjab Highway. Patrol as Constable. Since his appointment the appellant
always performed his duties honestly, proficiently, diligently and to the best of his abilities and to the
entire satisfaction of his superiors with his conduct and work.

2. that the appellant while posted as Constable of Punjab Highway Patrol, District Faisalabad was
proceeded against departmentally by way of two show cause notice dated 11.2.2013 bearing No.
260/PA/SP/PHP/FSD (Annexure-A) and show cause notice dated 1.4.2013 bearing No.
3S4/PA/SP/PHP/FSD (Annexure-A/ 1) by the respondent No. 1 under the provisions of the Punjab Police
(E&D) Rules, 1975, containing the following allegations:

I. Show Cause notice No. 260/PA/SP/PHP/FSD, Dated 11.02.2013.

"As per report submitted by Moharrar, Regional PHP, Police Lines, Faisalabad vide No. 06-L0/FSD, dated
5.2.2013, duly forwarded by line officer, Faisalabad Region that on 12.10.2012 vide DD. No. 4, the
delinquent proceeded to avail 90 days earned leave. He was required to report back for duty on
09.01.2013 but he did not report back intentionally. He reported on 06.02.2013 vide DD. No. 07 after
making an absence of 28 days.

ii. Show Cause Notice No. 354/PA/SP/PHP/FSD, Dated 01.04.2013

“As per report submitted by Incharge PHP Post Roshan Wali Jhal duly forwarded by DSP/PHP, Faisalabad
that on 05.03.2013, the delinquent constable was transferred at patrol post Roshan Wali Jhal but
instead of reporting at the patrol post, he absented himself without any leave or prior permission from
the competent authority vide DD No. 05, dated 07.03.2013 and are still at large.”

3. That above said show cause notices were never served upon the appellant due to which he could not
submit his defense reply to the show cause notices.

4. That it is submitted that In September, 2012, his mother's health condition was not well. The
appellant applied for leave and DIG/PHP, Lahore granted him 90 days earned leave. The appellant got
checked his mother from doctors who suggested CT scan of chest and lung biopsy which were carried
out in Al Shifa International Hospital, Islamabad and Army Medical College, Rawalpindi respectively.
After all these test and report, pulmonary tuberculosis was diagnosed. Doctor said that it is a
complicated case and need to proper treatment for almost one year. The appellant was very worried
about his mother's health. Being a son it was his responsibility to care and look after his mother’s health
on top priority. That is why the appellant was unable to report back after availing 90 days earned leave.
5. That, after making an absence of few days, the appellant reported back and started to performing
duties in the office of SP/ PHP/ FSD. But after a month the appellant was transferred by SP/PHP/FSD at
the patrol post. At this time the appellant’s treatment was undergoing. After transfer at patrol post, it
was very difficult for the appellant to manage time for his mother. The appellant requested SP IPHP/FSD
not to transfer the appellant from office to patrol post so that the appellant could continue look after his
ailing mother. But the SP/ PHP, Fsd rejected his request. It was impossible to leave alone his ailing
mother in such a critical condition.

6. That after one year treatment, unfortunately due to some side effect of medicines heart problem,
urinary tract infection and eyes disease were diagnosed in his mother. Then again the appellant got busy
in the treatment and look after of his mother. This was the reason that the appellant could not appear
before the DIG/PHP, Lahore in his orderly room. That is why his appeal was rejected to non appearance
before the DIG/PHP, Lahore.

7. That the appellant has faced very tough time for almost 3-4 years. Doctors (chest specialist, heart
specialist, medical specialist and eye specialist ) have cured his mother’s diseases in Dr. Iltifat Sultan
Hospital, doctors Hospital, Lahore, Faisal Hospital, Abdullah Medical Complex and the Lyallpur medical
service Faisalabad. Because of these stressed circumstances even the appellant was suffered from a'
brain disease (paroxysmal Hemicranias) which was, cured by Neurophysician Faisal Hospital.

8. That mere on basis of show cause notice, without holding any regular inquiry and affording a
reasonable opportunity of hearing, the appellant was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service
vide exparte impugned order dated 20.8.2013 bearing No. 673/PA/ SP/PHP/FSD (Annexure-B) passed by
the competent authority respondent No. 1 under the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 without applying
independent and judicious mind in a mechanical manner. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred
departmental appeal to the respondent No. 2 for setting aside the impugned order well within time. The
appellant frequently paid visits to the office of the respondent No. 2 but every time he was informed
that his departmental appeal is still pending. But subsequently, without giving any hearing notice to the
appellant the respondent No. 2 without applying independent judicious mind rejected the same in
absentia vide impugned order dated 15.07.2014 bearing No. 6071-73/Apl (Annexure: C) in perfunctory
manner.

9. That copy of said order was not communicated to the appellant. As soon as he got copy 'of the
impugned order at his own efforts, feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred revision petition
(Annexure-D) to the respondent No. 3 well within time for setting aside the impugned orders but the
respondent No. 3 without applying independent judicious mind rejected the same vide Impugned order
dated 23.11.2018 bearing No. 16275/PS (Annexure: D/1) In perfunctory and haphazard manner.
10. That all the Impugned orders passed by the departmental authorities are against law and facts,
unlawful, without any justification, unwarranted and liable to be set aside, Inter AIia on the following
amongst other:

Grounds;

a. That the impugned orders have been passed Illegally, unlawfully and arbitrarily against the facts, rules
and Instructions on the subject, hence the same are not sustainable In the eyes of law being without any
justification and unwarranted.

b. That it Is submitted that In September, 2012, his mother’s health condition was not well. The
appellant applied for leave and DIG/PHP, Lahore granted him 90 days earned leave. The appellant got
checked his mother from doctors who suggested CT scan of chest and lung biopsy which were carried
out in Al Shifa International Hospital, Islamabad and Army Medical College, Rawalpindi respectively.
After all these test and report, pulmonary tuberculosis was diagnosed. Doctor said that it Is a
complicated case and need to proper treatment for almost one year. The appellant was very worried
about his mother’s health. Being a son it was his responsibility to care and look after his mother’s health
on top priority. That Is why the appellant was unable to report back after availing 90 days earned leave.

c. That, after making an absence of few days, the appellant reported back and started to perform duties
in the office of SP/ PHP/ FSD. _But after a month the appellant was transferred by SP/PHP/FSD at the
patrol post. At this time the appellant's treatment was undergoing. After transfer at patrol post, it was
very difficult for the appellant to manage time for his mother. The appellant requested SP /PHP/FSD not
to transfer the appellant from office to patrol post so that the appellant could continue look after his
ailing mother. But the SP/ PHP, Fsd rejected his request. It was Impossible to leave alone his ailing
mother In such a critical condition.

d. That after one year treatment, unfortunately due to some side effect of medicines heart problem,
urinary tract infection and eyes disease where diagnosed his mother. This was the reason that the
appellant could not appear before the DIG/PHP, Lahore in his orderly room. That is why his appeal was
rejected to non appearance before the IDG, PHP, Lahore.

e. That the appellant has faced very tough time for almost 3-4 years. Doctors (chest specialist, heart
specialist, medical specialist and eye specialist ) have cured his mother’s diseases In Dr. Iitifat Sultan
Hospital, doctors Hospital, Lahore, Faisal Hospital, Abdullah Medical Complex and the Lyallpur medical
service Faisalabad. Because of these stressed circumstances even the appellant was suffered from a
brain disease (paroxysmal Hemicranias) which was cured by Neurophysician Faisal Hospital.

f. That according to the instructions contained in para 3 of the government letter No. SORI(S&GAD)2-
134/60 dated 28.12.1964 a civil servant is entitled to avaii leave in an anticipation due to own or his
close relative’s Illness and thus denied the allegations leveled against him.
g. that factual controversy was involved In the matter which cannot be resolved without holding a
regular and full-fledged inquiry but the authority did not conduct any regular inquiry without assigning
any reasons. It has been held in law down in 2007 SCMR 192, similarly in 2006 SCMR 846 where it was
specifically held that before imposing major penalty regular inquiry must be conducted but in the instant
case no such kind of regular inquiry .was conducted and thus the appellant was deprived of reasonable
opportunity. of hearing. Reliance is placed on PLD 1989 (SC) 335. _

h. That the appellant has been condemned unheard and no proper opportunity of personal hearing was
afforded to the appellant, nor any show cause notice was ever served upon the appellant which is sheer
and clear violation of principle of natural justice as guaranteed by the Article 10 of the Constitution 1973
of the country. It Is also violation of principle of Audi alterem Partem, therefore, the impugned orders
are not sustainable in the eye of law.

That the penalty awarded to the appellant is too harsh and does not commensurate with the quantum
of guilt of the appellant. It is settled principle of law that quantum of punishment should commensurate
with the guilt of the accused. Reliance is placed on PLC 1995 CS 134 Qurban Ali Vs. DIG, KLR 2006, L&SC
(FST) 205(b), 2006 SCMR 104, 2008 SCMR 1362 and 2007 PLC (CS) 247 (SC).

j. That throughout service career of years, the appellant always performed his duties with due diligence
and assiduousness but was penalized only due to single lapse otherwise, the appellant always
discharged his duties honestly and proficiently. So the major penalty imposed is not commensurate with
the alleged guilt of the appellant. Reliance is placed on 1985 PLC CS 79, PLD 1977 SC 24 AND 1980 PLC CS
401.

k. That impugned order has been passed by the respondents against the PHP Rules, so, the impugned
orders are illegal and void abnitio. So, limitation does not run against void and illegal order.

PRAYER:

In view of the above mentioned submissions and foregoing reasons it is most respectfully prayed that
the instant appeal may kindly be accepted and impugned orders dated 20.8.2013, 15.7.2014 and
23.11.2018 may very kindly be set aside and the appellant may kindly be reinstated in service with all
back benefits by treating the intervening period as spent on duty for the sake of justice, equity and fair
play.

Any other relief which this Honourable Court may deems tit and

proper may also be awarded. QC 41/

You might also like